How harmless is it to post an article about why people should read the bible on a site devoted to religion? I did on this very page, and it evoked more than 2,000 responses, most of them angry…

It is curious that a religion site draws responses mostly from atheists, and that the atheists are very unhappy…Only the untutored assume that religious people predominate on websites (Huffington Post Religion page, On Faith in the Washington Post, Beliefnet.com) devoted to religion.

He thinks a section of a website is itself a website, or he pretends to think that so that he can claim that the religion section of the Huffington Post is a website and therefore that he was just minding his own business on a religion website and a lot of pesky atheists barged in and started yelling at him. But HuffPo is not a religion website and it is not obvious or self-explanatory that news sites or commentary sites have to include “faith” sections at all. The fact that some such sites treat “faith” with such deference is a major source of the irritation.

Or to put it another way, HuffPo has a mixed audience, so Wolpe can’t expect atheists to stay off his particular articles on the grounds that he’s not talking to us. It doesn’t work that way. There’s no invisible fence around the “faith” section of HuffPo. We don’t look at his stuff and say “well he’s just doing his job” and go away again without saying anything.

In short, no, it’s not curious that pieces like his draw more atheists than theists. It’s not that we’re trespassing on his space, it’s that he’s trespassing on ours – on everyone’s. We simply don’t take it for granted that religion should have a place at every single table.

But why seek out a religious site solely to insult religion? I wondered: Why are atheists so angry?

It’s not a religious site; it’s a section of a secular site, which we think pays far too much attention to religion. We don’t seek it out; it thrusts itself upon our attention. We’re angry because we’re tired of sanctimonious nagging.

35 Responses to “Why are atheists so angry?”

I do a little commenting at the OnFaith section of the Washington Post, and frankly, that site would probably stop existing if it weren’t for the traffic that atheists bring to it, both by their own views, and by starting discussions in the comments. I probably wouldn’t be too terribly hard on the Rabbi, but frankly, most of the religious commentors there make accusations of bigotry, anti-Catholicism, or ignorance when you disagree with them.

The funny think is Rabbi Wolpe (at least according to Wikipedia) isn’t terrible in his views… he at least owned up to Exodus being untrue (even though he later copped out on that stance later). It seems a shame that he doesn’t seem to realize that people might find that such things being fake undermines their faith, and even more importantly, that it makes us angry that holy men are teaching things that they *know* are wrong, or just not mentioning it.

That’s what I’m hearing about my recent piece, too: stop bitching, move to another country, ignore it. Just shut the fuck up you angry little atheist prick. If Wolpe has an audience at all, it’s because he doesn’t mind getting his tuches kicked very publicly by Christopher Hitchens. He should be thankful to atheists.

I caught your tweet about it earlier and the things Wolpe said in that post made me livid. I stopped even attempting to comment at HuffPo long ago and a quick glance at the comment section makes me glad I did. The stooopid is strong there.

Actually I agree with the good Rebbe, everybody should read the bible and with a very critical eye. They would soon realize that it is so full of internal contradiction that it cannot possibly be true in any way. But I would prefer that people would read about the bible too. Reading a few good, authoritative books on the origins of the bible, other scriptures and textural criticism would quickly show why it cannot possibly be true.

Would it mystify the rabbi if web pages and blog posts devoted to promoting antisemitism, advising people to read “Mein Kampf” and “Protocols of Zion,” were inundated with responses from outraged Jews? The essential message of theistic religious discourse and the “holy” books — even when they pretend otherwise — is that, without God belief, you are lower than your believing neighbors. Lower in moral insight, lower in “humility” and “awe,” lower in speculative, optimistic imagination, lower in civic dignity, and so forth. Add to this a cultural climate where religious expressions are permitted to pass under special protection from critical inquiry, and even given privileged hearing in moral questions, with clergy preferentially consulted on general matters of ethics and human well-being, and I think the source of atheist anger should be obvious. When the rabbi can explain what special expertise he has in any subject other than Jewish doctrine, then we will take his authority as a commentator more graciously. Until then, his claims on our attention are frankly suspect, and our indignation at his presumption is to expected.

Maybe Rabbi Smoopy McPoopy runs into so many angry atheists because he’s an insufferable jackhole, and the only reason other people don’t treat him the way he deserves is because he holds the threat of Jehovah over them?

I don’t know of any atheists claiming the bible shouldn’t be read. That survey showing atheists had better knowledge of religion than believers is worth considering on this point. Rabbi Wolpe is considerably more circumspect when facing Christopher Hitchens than when writing for an invisible audience. I think there’s only one relevant reason for atheist anger. He lists four: resentment of religion’s evils, refusal to consider that believing scientists might be right, arrogance and … “want of wonder”…? That’s a terrible list, one that I think could never have been dreamt up by an actual angry atheist.

All Rabbi Wolpe has to do to understand atheist anger is to look at the amount of real power and equivalent influence religion still has in the world. We could probably live with that if anything had ever convinced us there was a real supernatural power behind it. But without that belief, all the power and influence is nothing but normal human corruption on divine steroids. The only one of his points that has half a leg to stand on is the first one, about religion’s evils. But none of them could have happened without religion having power and they have only ceased where religion has lost that power.

There is so much we do not know. Religious people too should acknowledge this truth. Epistemological humility — the acknowledgment that we are at the very first baby steps of understanding — is far wiser than arrogance on either side.

Does he even understand what he writes? I’m always amazed by these pleas for recognizing that we lack extraordinary knowledge from people who ground their justification for such pleas on their own supposed extraordinary knowledge.

But why seek out a religious site solely to insult religion? I wondered: Why are atheists so angry?

But why seek to keep nonbelievers out of a site solely to protect religion? I wonder: why are theists so afraid?

If religion was supposed to be an individual matter, an expression of one’s tastes or preferences, then the rabbi’s criticism might make sense. If you don’t like Twighlight, why go to a fan site just to insult the show? Why go to a quilting bee to tell the quilters that quilts are ugly? What is it to you? De gustibus non disputandum.

But religion is supposed to be — and is generally acknowledged to be — the best way to explain the world. It makes truth claims about reality by asserting that the supernatural exists — and then goes on to insist that this is a very, very important fact which changes and limits normal, secular forms of science and philosophy. It’s holistic science and philosophy, in competition with those lesser forms in the public square. It’s not just appealing to ‘fans’ who enjoy the aesthetics. Those truths are supposed to apply to everyone. They are ground on which we all stand — or they are not. And deciding this issue is supposed to be central to everyone’s life. It matters.

So the rabbi shouldn’t be surprised that nonbelievers don’t think they are intruding on special turf reserved for believers. Discussion, dialogue, and debate can involve insults — as long as the critics go on to explain why. Which they usually do, in detail and at length: that’s the part that’s really annoying, though, isn’t it?

I wonder how the percentages would stack up if we were able to compare the number of atheist parents prepared to allow their children to read the bible or qur’an as against religious parents prepared to let their children read anything by either Darwin or Dawkins.

I grab my bible more often than most books. It’s in a place on the bookshelf where I can reach it without getting up (this involves a contortionist twist, but at least I don’t have to get up). It’s a gideon (thank you very much, gideons), full of markups, questions, page or chapter and verse numbers, etc.

Oh, and looking back at the article that got all the reactions that made him write this one, what a fine piece of cherry-picking. He gives a few examples of behaviour he sees as typical unchanging human and always closes with “change the names and the story is about you.” Why no Abraham agreeing to sacrifice his son in there? Why no David sending Uriah off to battle so he can get his widow? Why no Elisha getting the bears sent by god to maul the children who mocked his baldness? Why no Lot agreeing to hand over his daughters to be raped in place of his guests? The list is endless. No, I think if you change the names, most of the examples I just gave would not be about me, thank you very much.

Oh, and I’m with you on bible placement, Ophelia. It is usually about the only book I can reach without getting up (King James – presented to my mother upon her naturalisation as an Australian citizen in 1958).

Why are atheists angry? Why are people angry at evolution deniers, or why are people angry at paedophile priests, or why are people angry at the murder of children infected with demons, or why be angry at women being buried and stoned to death, or if genitals are mutilated? Um, no idea, really.

If they want to post their rubbish on news and opinion websites that are open to everyone – then they are sadly deluded if they expect thinking people to nod and smile at their tosh. They will get feedback, some considered, some angry, some both …

If Mr. Wolpe wasn’t talking to us, why did he post his opinion piece in a place where lots of atheists were bound to see it?

I think all of these ridiculous Faith/Religion/Belief sections could easily be consumed into a wider section – perhaps Critical Thinking? Hmm but that might not discourage too many religious commenters for whom this is anathema. Perhaps myths and legends, where we can include rational discussions about Odin and Zues and modern urban legends as well…

For Wolpe, the idea that the Bible is just a book is unacceptable. The very existence of atheists puts the idea in people’s minds that it is just a book.

One of my Bibles in an interesting artifact. It’s a KJV I’ve had for many, many years, and it dates back to my early teens when I dabbled briefly in protestant Christianity. Shortly thereafter (age 16) I became an atheist. But this Bible, this tattered little book that is perhaps the oldest of my possessions, still has the curious marginalia of the 13 year-old who believed its words to be literally true. I would scribble in the preacher’s suggestions for how to interpret certain verses, even little mini-prayers and reminders of what “God wanted” for my life. Since then, of course, much more marginalia has been added by my adult, atheist self. Most of the notes now in there have been written by the atheist I’ve become, but every once in a while I’ll come across my old 13 year-old scribblings and be made slightly embarrassed/ wistful/ charmed/ horrified.

What difference does it make that a site’s religious or not? You say something publicly, the public gets to comment. If atheists are angry, maybe it’s because of the presumption by the religious that their fantastic public claims should not be questioned. I’m not angry, though, just exasperated.

For me, honestly, the stupidity of that post goes beyond the confines of religion. No one, no matter where they are posting, so long as it is public, has a right to be upset that they are receiving negative responses. I’m sorry, but that’s just the nature of contributing your viewpoint. It’s sad that HuffPo would even publish an article whose sole purpose was to whine that an earlier article was receiving criticism; not *answering* criticism, or engaging with it in any way, not *defending* his viewpoint, merely whining that someone dared to publicly express their disagreement, and mangling your response to their disagreement into a sad, wishy-washy psychoanalysis.

To the Rabbi: if, in the future, you do not wish to receive negative responses on your articles, do not write any, or else, do not share them with anyone. I assure you, we won’t hack your hard drive just to seek out your silly might-have-been opinions pieces and chastise them. If, however, you would like to be a grown-up, continue writing, and next time, rather than bitch about the fact that people are engaging with your work, respond to their critiques honestly and openly, or just take it, y’know, like real writers and journalists do every goddamned day.

Since we’re talkin’ Bibles, I have the New American StandardBible (a gift to my wife from and American Protestant pastor in Italy), the JPS Tanakh (Jewish Bible), a Hebrew-Italian Bibbia Ebraica and Willis Barnstone’s Restored New Testament, as well as various translations of the Psalms. No KJV, although it’s fantastic prose. All well-thumbed!

I also have a bible nearby, but I have to confess that it’s the dictionary I reach for the most. Darn you well educated people with your fancy vocabularies! It’s enough to make me angry (I bet the rabbi didn’t think of that reason.)

Huh?? The atheists I know are much more curious about and interested in learning more about the amazing world around us than most religious people I have encountered.

“In a world in which so much is still not understood, in which multiple universes are possible, in which we have not pierced the mystery of consciousness…..”

OK, which explanation is the one that celebrates wonder? The one that says “goddidit”, or the one that says, “That’s interesting, I don’t know the answer, let’s try to find out more.”

And, yes, I have read the bible through several times (and I am currently slogging through the Koran which is the topic of the CFI-Ottawa bookclub meeting tomorrow night). But I have to confess that though I have plenty of dead tree bibles in various translations about my house, I generally prefer to use online resources with their easy access to searches (no need for the 3″ thick concordance), comparing translations etc. (not to mention pictures: eg http://www.thebricktestament.com )

Why are atheists so angry? I would bet the vast majority of atheists just ignore the theists and perhaps that’s a good idea. I find it difficult to ignore theists because every time I read the newspaper I see religious stupidity and religious violence out of control. Am I angry about it? It would be more accurate to say I’m disgusted. This is the 21st century and most of the population of Idiot America is still living in the Dark Ages.

I know it is hard for diehard Christians to understand, but Jesus is as fictional as Santa Claus to atheists. Saying that we hate Jesus for anything then, I hope you can see, looks extremely ludicrous to us. It’s the equivalent of telling us that we hate Captain Kirk or Voldemort and not at all the same as hating a living or recently living person or even the anonymous authors of the Bible.

Give me your addresses and I’ll be sure to come and witness to your kids. It will probably the only decent thing they’ve ever heard in your house.

Something tells me you wouldn’t last a second in our houses doing this. Even my kids (cats and dogs) would be impervious to your blathering about Jesus, and you could no more sway them than you could an inquisitive human child; there is a reason for this–it is because Jesus does not exist and thus cannot interact with anything.

We are never going to go away. How does that make you feel?

Well, you will. All humans eventually die and you will probably die before many of us here. And, most likely, bad ideas with no evidence such as yours and those of other theists will not be sustainable in the face of our current human knowledge and will give way to scientific reality.

Matt – what? Who said anything about hating Jesus? There’s only one mention of Jesus on the whole page before your own, so what are you talking about?

Jesus doesn’t say anything about my works or our works, because he’s been dead for 2000 years (if he existed at all, which has not been established). No you won’t come and do anything at my house, because you’re not invited. You’re a stranger, and a pretty rude one.

Of course you’re going to go away; we all are. If you mean there will always be Christians, you’re probably right, but you don’t know how numerous or how dogmatic they will be at any particular time in the future. You also don’t know they’ll survive the disappearance of the glaciers and the consequent crop failures. Atheists and Christians alike may disappear, leaving the earth to lizards and snakes.

Many atheists are angry because of unresolved anger with their childhood. That deep seeded anger due to the betrayal/neglect or abuse of one’s parents at such a young age leaves them scarred for life, never able to believe that a God would actually care for them. (Study basic childhood psychology and you can easily see the connection) Atheists see God as hateful, because their own upbringing was absolutely hateful, through no fault of their own. I know an atheist very closely, and he was deeply neglected and wounded as a child, left alone to cry with no one to hold him, no love, nothing. Now he is a grown man who is emotionally stunted (can’t be any serious relationship) but absolutely intelligent. Many atheists seem to have high IQs, but terribly low EQs. He doesn’t even know why he is the way he is, he can’t even verbalize anything about his emotions to hopefully dig his way out of his past, his hurt, his wounds. I read up on Piers Morgans childhood (was interested because he is so deeply angry with anything God-related). Morgan’s childhood sounded really rough. Seems to fit in line with the theory posed above. Atheists can’t understand the things written about in the Bible because the Bible talks about relationships. Man’s relationship to God, and man’s relationship to each other. An atheist’s ability to understand and be in any healthy relationship was robbed from them as infants and young children due to abuse and neglect.I see atheists as people to be loved more because they were so robbed of love as a child. Their anger is deep, and strong, but they’re also deeply hurt. Anyone who has been hurt will understand this.Don’t believe it when someone says they are christian just because it came from their mouths. No real christian would ever hold up a sign that says “G– hates f–s” That’s just the religious fanatics, not the real church. Church (institution) is filed with hypocrites. Judge by the fruit of their lives, not by the words out of their mouths.